Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei

Quarantine facilities

there were apparently 16 quarantine facilities throughout the province, and all of them were closed since 11 March 2020. Anywhere to include such details? https://www.thestar.com.my/news/regional/2020/03/11/wuhan-has-closed-all-16-temporary-hospitals robertsky (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Patient zero

Hi, is there any information regarding patient zero? I read this from Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in February 2020

"In response to allegations that patient zero was its research student, Wuhan Institute of Virology released a statement saying no members of the Institute was infected and that the student had been working in other provinces for years."

Thanks. Bennylin (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

There should be information somewhere relating to the December cluster. As I understand it there were several early cases taken as atypical pneumonia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

References

Patient maybe zero and further confusing lack of clarity

This article begins with "The COVID-19 pandemic was first manifested by a cluster of mysterious pneumonia in Wuhan, the provincial capital of Hubei, China." but that is not completely true. As stated, it feeds into the false news being promoted by some politicians.

In the "Early response..." section, the more complete story is told. "On 13 March 2020, an unverified report from the South China Morning Post suggested that a COVID-19 case, traced back to 17 November 2019, in a 55-year-old from Hubei province, may have been the first patient."

Should that not be the first line? Many people will not read all the way into the full article all the way to the Early response in Hubei section. But the conflation of Hubei province outside the city of Wuhan in the title and within the article is confusing. Someone please let me know which opening would be more appropriate. I will not edit the document itself without support.

It appears that patient zero has not been conclusively determined medically, but the first known case was found in Hubei province on November 17, 2019, outside Wuhan, not in a wet market, nor in a Wuhan lab. I checked the first source, the South China Morning Post, but this one is more inclusive. I prefer to wait until there are several references. The LiveScience article includes a link from The Lancet. Please investigate more for yourself. I make no claims to the completeness of any information, it is only what I have researched.

VPski (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Claims of huge (factor of 30) underestimate of COVID-19 death count in Wuhan

See also: Template_talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data/Archive_9 § Beijing's_specious_numbers

The Telegraph refers to an estimate of about 59,000 COVID-19 deaths in Wuhan, and Time magazine makes weaker, but also strong claims of a big underestimate of COVID-19 deaths in Wuhan. If the 59k claim is true, then Wuhan could soon be at herd immunity level: if the infection mortality rate is 1% (and it's probably lower in reality), then that would make 6,000,000 people infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, out of a total population of about 11,000,000. So that would make the situation close to the herd immunity level.

Do we have any more or better sources? Boud (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I saw nothing so far seriously arguing for such numbers of death. Wuhan has 500 natural death per day and went on quarantine for 60 days. ~30,000 natural deaths occured, with medics picking up the bodies, bringing them to the incinerators, and no family member allowed to come to pick urns for 60 days. Now we see photographs of 10s of 1000s urns.... So what ? Cheap journalism is our time's plague. Yug (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The difference between 30k and 90k urns would require a very accurate estimate of the number, not just an order of magnitude estimate. I agree that the claims are weak. Boud (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I dont find the "59.000 deaths" in our article. If you cant back that up, the increase to some 50.333 infections with 3.869 dead in early April [1] - should stay. Alexpl (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED - after 3 weeks, no support for this move by anyone other than the nominator. No prejudice against an immediate proposal of some other move or split. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

---

COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei → COVID-19 pandemic in Wuhan – The primary subject of this article is the birthplace of the pandemic in Wuhan, thus WP:COMMONNAME dictates that we use that. If someone really thinks it is necessary to also have a province subject, if notable, then they can cut off some content and move that there. Anyone who wants to look can easily see that Covid Wuhan is 5x the search results to Covid Hubei. The common name of covid in Chinese was for a long time 武汉肺炎, which means Wuhan pneumonia. We should not be assisting in renaming a common name to pretend this is a provincial article, which might not even be notable by itself. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 17:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. -- Aervanath (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – this article doesn't just cover Wuhan, it also covers other parts of Hubei such as Huanggang, Ezhou, and Shiyan. I don't understand the COMMONNAME argument – Wuhan is not another name for Hubei, but rather a city within the province of Hubei. By the way, this isn't the only province-specific article about COVID-19; we also have COVID-19 pandemic in Henan, COVID-19 pandemic in Liaoning, and others. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The other two articles you note lack a single english language source and clearly lack notability in english language wikipedia. Wherein every single source is from mainland chinese media, well known to be the mouthpiece of the party, and thus no more than WP:PRIMARY when looked at as a whole. Maybe these two articles were created solely to justify the naming of this article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This article's naming is justified by its content, which is not limited to Wuhan but rather covers other parts of Hubei too. I'll comment on the other articles at the AfD discussions you've started. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose because it amounts to a change in scope of the article and thus parts of the article would need to be rewritten. I support the creation of an article entitled COVID-19 pandemic in Wuhan (zh:2019冠狀病毒病武漢市疫情) as a clearly notable topic by enwp standards. feminist (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Feminist: about half of this article is about the outbreak while it was still am Epidemic, so may have to move page to reflect this, as well as create the new Wuhan specific page. LondonIP (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support move to COVID-19 epidemic in Hubei, since the outbreak was still at the epidemic stage while still in Wuhan. The Pandemic was only declared once it spread further around China and the world. LondonIP (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject COVID-19 has been notified of this discussion. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 12:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.